Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Royalty and nobility

WP:DELSORT/Royalty and nobility

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Royalty and nobility. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Royalty and nobility|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Royalty and nobility. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Royalty and nobility/archive

Purge page cache

watch

For the general policy on the inclusion of individual people in Wikipedia, see WP:BIO.

Articles for deletion

List of living former sovereign monarchs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY about listing of living monarchs, also largely unsourced. Absolutiva (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Royalty and nobility. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of heirs to the throne of Liechtenstein

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Liechtenstein. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does the nominator mean that there are no citations present, or that it's impossible to find citations to support this list? pburka (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need a list of heirs presumptive to a relic of an unholy, non-Italian principality? If yes, then please find at least one more secondary source to get to WP:SIGCOV, and ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of heirs to the Greek throne

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Greece. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does the nominator mean that there are no citations present, or that it's impossible to find citations to support this list? pburka (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need a list of heirs presumptive to a deposed monarchy? This is a question similar to the list for Liechtenstein. If yes, then please find at least one more secondary source to get to WP:SIGCOV, and ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kunwar Sone Singh Ponwar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page was created in 2008 and since then only consists of a single sentence. Likely fails WP:GNG. Could redirect to Chhatarpur State#History (Apologies for any Formatting errors). S302921 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. What a mess. I see a few Google book references under “Kunwar Sone Shah”, but I’m not sure if they count as significant coverage. I’ve done my fair share of rescues this month, so this is not my circus. Bearian (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lords and margraves of Bergen op Zoom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uncited article on an unnotable office. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Royalty and nobility, and Netherlands. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bergen op Zoom#History (provided it is properly sourced). That article mentions the margravate. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge indeed. Title abolished in 1795 is a fascinating footnote and barely more. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article is too large to merge into the Bergen op Zoom history section, the result would be too unbalanced. I have provided three references. Bergen op Zoom is very proud of its history as margraviate. The palace of the margraves is a wonderful museum. The article on the list of Lords and Margraves is very interesting and useful.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither article is even remotely large. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Size is a relative concept. The history section in the Bergen op Zoom article is four paragraphs, 320 words. Very short. The Lords and margraves article is 200 words. Large, relative to the short history section. Merge the two and the result is unbalanced, in my opinion. That´s all. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given there is a museum dedicated to the margraves at Bergen op Zoom, it is a historically notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I presume there was no effort made to establish the nature of the 'musuem dedicated to the margraves at Bergen op Zoom'. It is the Markiezenhof, the oldest city palace in the Netherlands and it is not 'dedicated to the margraves'. And its existence and purpose doesn't make the list of lords and margraves of that place any more notable, properly referenced, germane or necessary. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Markiezenhof is not exactly a museum about the margraves, it is a museum named after the margraves. Still, the three Stijlkamers, three rooms of the permanent exhibit, are dedicated to Margrave Maria Henriette de la Tour d´Auvergne. So, a part of the museum is dedicated to the margraves, in particular to one of them. Anyway, I have added one more reference, a 170 page book specifically about the Lords and margraves, to further strengthen my case that the topic deserves a standalone article. Best, Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - European noble titles / families are notable when adequately sourced, and this one is. It's a bit too large to merge comfortably to the Bergen op Zoom article. Ingratis (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Feel that reasons stated by keep voters above are just so. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All three sources in the article are passing mentions in relation to his father. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Brazil. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael of Orléans-Braganza. DrKay (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both English and simple-English Wikipedias contain numerous articles about descendants of the defunct Brazilian royal family—individuals whose encyclopedic relevance is highly questionable, especially considering that many do not even have articles on the Portuguese Wikipedia. There is longstanding evidence of coordinated edits by pro-monarchy groups who create such articles as part of a cross-wiki spam effort, aiming to inflate the prominence of these figures. Sturm (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is the future head of the Imperial House of Brazil. I see no reason why he shouldn't have a Wikipedia page. I was surprised that his father didn't have one. GandalfXLD (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just remembered that his older brother, Prince Pedro Luiz, too had a Wikipedia page. GandalfXLD (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited.98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect based on past precedent of keeping deposed monarchs, but requiring significant coverage of the royal person. In my longstanding standards for nobility, I write, “Spouses and minor children of deposed royalty could be notable, because their businesses, charity work, attendance at relatives' notable weddings, or a notable scandal often provides them with media attention.” I don’t see any coverage at all about this young man - it might be just too soon since he was “promoted”. I recommend, as we often do in such cases, to redirect to Brazilian imperial family or another appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to House of Orléans-Braganza#Vassouras line. I actually think the article is weakened by the addition today of a lot of detail from his brother's article. There's basically nothing in the article about him personally other than his birth. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As the above poster pointed out, very little is about him personally.98.228.137.44 (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sturm (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several relevant news articles that pass WP:GNG.Axisstroke (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? Geschichte (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright for lack of sources supporting notability. Rafael may well inherit the throne of Brazil one day, but the notability he's after here cannot be inherited. Fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House of Orléans-Braganza#Vassouras line per WP:ATD. It's a credible search term at the very least, and a redirect to the House of Orléans-Braganza would seem appropriate as well as a brief passing mention of the subject on that page.4meter4 (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per 4meter4. Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Looks like this one could be a candidate for expansion from the French-language version.[1] estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala Ajja

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was recreated under a different name shortly after being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajja Jhala. The creator has used a different set of sources that still do not show evidence of notability. The page creator has wisely foregone the fantastical non-independent sources discussed in the previous AfD, but we still get nowhere close to WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. A brief analysis:

A series of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: History of Mewar has a single mention on page 174. Jhala Zalim Singh has a single name check on page 20. Mewar and the Mughal Emperors has a single paragraph mentioning Ajja. Maharana Sanga The Hindupat gives another single mention to Jhala Ajja.
A series of colonial-era British sources (also trivial mentions) of questionable reliability per WP:RAJ: History of the Dhrangadhra State (1921) has two trivial mentions on page 69; Rajputana Gazetteer has single trivial mention on p. 128; The Mewar Residency, volume 2 (1908) offers a single reference.
The WP:SELFPUBLISHED Medieval History of Rajasthan, which, even if reliable, gives a single mention to Ajja.

Bottom line: this appears to be an effort using WP:SYNTH to fabricate notability out of a series of passing mentions, many in sources of questionable reliablity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)impo[reply]
Delete. As I said in the previous discussion, the authors are of course interested in propping up their fanaticized family history. WP is not the place for this kind of promo. Also, this likely runs afoul of G4 at WP:CSD. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greens vs. Blacks I tried; an admin declined the G4. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Might not pass GNG but passes the subject-specific notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN as a ruler of a state. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a hereditary prince of a subnational region a politician under WP:NPOL? Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL says that politician holding national or state/province wide office is presumed to be notable and being a hereditary ruler of a state is a state/province-wide political office. Wikipedia:Notability says that the article topic has to meet either GNG OR subject-specific notability guideline including WP:NPOL and it does not have to meet both. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King and ruler are automatically notable on Wikipedia per WP:NPOL. 2001:EE0:1B23:B2C5:355B:3504:AFE0:49EB (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC) — 2001:EE0:1B23:B2C5:355B:3504:AFE0:49EB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NPOL says nothing about hereditary royalty. It covers politicians and judges. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article topic is a ruler. All rulers are politicians by definition. They wield political powers and make policies for the lands and subjects under their rule. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: This article has been tagged for G4 deletion twice, and for both times, 2 different admins (Nyttend and I) have reviewed the content here and the deleted article: they are 100% different. As such, please do not tag CSD G4 again. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the IP. We don't delete monarchs on notability grounds, as they're at least as notable as non-monarchial figures at similar levels. Even if he were subject to a higher monarch, he would have been at a level comparable to the chief minister of a small state in the current Republic of India, and the fact that he inherited his role is irrelevant. Also, the cited WP:RAJ discusses caste issues; this is unrelated to caste, and citing a userspace essay is unhelpful. Don't impose a userspace essay's point of view on everyone. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the policy to your point that "We don't delete monarch on notability grounds..." I haven't read a policy stating that. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely separate from the reliability of the sources, none of them constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jhala Ajja is a notable person. Article shouldn't be deleted. Lordo'Web (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in sources. The article in question doesn't meet notability in WP:GNG, rendering it eligible for deletion under WP:SYNTH. Additionaly, the article's cursory examination of the subject fails to provide the requisite depth and analysis stipulated by WP:INDEPTH, thus necessitating its removal. MSLQr (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG according to the concept of WP:Junk delete. He is not a notable person references show overview of only one event WP:ONEEVENT so he's a fictionary character in history:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parul Sindhwan (talk • contribs) 07:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nominator's explanations it should be deleted per SYNTH sources of RSSELF & lacking in depth-covrage DEPTH. Interestingly it is related to the series of articles directly related to Jhala dynasty. ®asteem Talk 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see a consensus here yet. But would editors arguing for a Keep, please point out which sources establish GNG or provide SIGCOV?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cited refs fail to constitute WP:SIGCOV, focused on the Jhala clan, but barely mention Jhala Ajja's leadership in any depth. Despite examining the Refs of Dr. R.P. Shastri, G Sharma, and Ram Vallabh Somani, insufficient information exists to establish Ajja Jhala's notability, contravening Wikipedia's GNG Guideline. Useroppa (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC) — Useroppa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not quite finding the level of decent sourcing we'd expect... Some mentions of the individual, but I don't think we have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. DrKay (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Proposed deletions

Hywel ab Owain (via WP:PROD on 2 November 2024)

Deletion reviews

The following royalty and nobility-related Deletion reviews are currently open for discussion: